Excellent BMJ Article Responding to Previous One Featuring ATH

[Wanderabout]

www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3371/rr-0

"Proposed ‘terminology’ may mislead and fudges the reality of biological sexual dimorphism. Sex is not “assigned”, but determined at conception and in early embryonic life. Biological characteristics of male and female have “historically” been observed at birth and likely this will continue. Sex should not be confused with gender - a social construct. Although internal subjective identity, legal status and external appearance can change or be re-aligned, a person’s underlying biological sex cannot."

Also comments on lack of normal robust evidence for previous BMJ article.

Thank you for upholding science and scientific standards:
Richard Byng
GP and Professor in Primary Care Research
Susan Bewley, Chair of Health Watch; Damian Clifford, Consultant Liaison Psychiatrist; Margaret McCartney, GP and freelance writer

I cannot believe this but I am actually applauding the courage and conviction of these physicians FOR SAYING BASIC FACTS! IN A MEDICAL JOURNAL!

Although internal subjective identity, legal status and external appearance can change or be re-aligned, a person’s underlying biological sex cannot.

Why does this even need to be pointed out?

However, the article does not question the steep rise in referrals, especially of girls, to gender identity clinics (GICs) nor concern itself with potential harms of self-diagnosis and prescribing, or medical over-diagnosis and over-treatment.

YES.

The absence of robust independent evidence of the type normally expected by the BMJ when contemplating significant medical interventions was disappointing.

Not just disappointing, actually a borderline dereliction of duty?

We disagree with the campaign group Action for Trans Health’s claim that ‘the continued existence of GICs amounts to wilful abuse of trans people’.

Please disagree with ATH. They're a lobby group with some quite concerning ideas. Their claims should be examined very carefully.

Thanks for sharing Wanderabout. I had to reread it again just to make sure it was really the sane response I was hoping for.

Medicine needs to be held to regulatory and ethical standards (such as ‘first of all, do no harm’), rather than allowing a system where healthcare professionals simply respond to client expectations. A survey of doctors could helpfully highlight this important issue and describe physicians’ views.

SO GOOD!

There does seem to be a number of people coming forward now to have their say when it's been relatively quiet save for a few brave souls. I hope this keeps up.

Margaret McCartney often features on R4’s Inside Health. She is consistently excellent and has I think in the past debunked exaggerated medicine related claims and fads.

Here she discusses the problem of overtreatment:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091v271

While the proposal to measure outcomes and experience of those receiving interventions is to be welcomed, there is a vital opportunity, and ethical imperative, to create an ongoing cohort study for all those referred, so that outcomes can be measured at a population level over time.

^ This is so important.

The only thing that letter lacked was paragraph breaks (viewing on a mobile device).

Attempt at clicky link:

www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3371/rr-0

"Biological characteristics of male and female have “historically” been observed at birth and likely this will continue"

Dripping with sarcasm

I love Margaret McCartney and Inside Health is one of the best programmes on radio 4. Especially as you can access the archive going way back.

Medicine needs to be held to regulatory and ethical standards (such as ‘first of all, do no harm’), rather than allowing a system where healthcare professionals simply respond to client expectations

This stands out. It is dry and absolutely to the point, a direct challenge to 'we want' and accusations of transohobia if 'we don't get'.

Dr Hillary Jones spoke of caution too on Loose women.

I love Margaret McCartney and Inside Health is one of the best programmes on radio 4.

She is a gem.

This week's BMJ has 2 pages on "improving trans health" talking about extending the service due to demand. Lots on how they are a risk cohort but nothing on whether hormones etc reduce the risk and whether increasing gender dysphoric services may do more harm than good and looking at why people now feel changing their gender is the solution for all their problems.

Do we know the author?

Why has this taken so long? Better late than never though. Thanks for this.

Very useful quotes.

The article ought to persuade the government to go back to the drawing board on the protected characterisitc of "gender reassignment" (Equality Act), until such time as there is better research.

More understanding is required into the complex interactions between autogynephilia (a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female), sexuality and sexual preference, male to hyper-sexualized female transgenderism, and hormonal or surgical treatment."

Woke, in the old-fashioned sense, to Rosa and Rosemary's article yesterday, and to the Transsexual Voices statement (currently being improved in acknowledgement of criticisms). And got up this morning to discover Janice Turner's article, this excellent BMJ piece and the Margaret MaCartney link. Like diving into a pool of cool clear rationality. Thanks MNers.
Think I'll have an extra piece of toast and marmalade in celebration.

I note the reference to autogynephilia, a thing that I have often seen referred to on these boards as not existing.

Thanks for posting this article. Just for the record, from the article written by four health professionals, "^^Although internal subjective identity, legal status and external appearance can change or be re-aligned, a person’s underlying biological sex cannot.

Tried to put quote in italics but didn't quite work out!

What are the chances, do we think, of Medical Misogynist Dr Adrian Haddock calling out the authors of this piece on Twitter and setting his rabid attack pack on them? Not high, I'd suggest, given he prefers to bully and dox lone GC women.

Would someone care to tweet him a link to the piece and ask for his comments?

I think I'll contact BBC R4 Inside Health and suggest they do a feature on this. It's about time the BBC's uncritical support of all things trans, especially transkids, was challenged with some facts.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b019dl1b/contact

Bore yes yes! I was thinking the same thing.
I also like More or Less which "sometimes debunks - the numbers and statistics used in political debate, the news and everyday life" though I suspect the trans suicide rates argument would be too much of a hot potato for this programme, which is essentially light hearted whilst getting to the nub of the facts.

This is interesting

The ‘new scientist’ magazine has drunk the kool aid too which indicates how terrified scientists are of upsetting people.

Iused2BanOptimist. Let's do it then!